Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Cognitive complexity in data modeling: causes and recommendations

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Requirements Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Data modeling is a complex task for novice designers. This paper conducts a systematic study of cognitive complexity to reveal important factors pertaining to data modeling. Four major sources of complexity principles are identified: problem solving principles, design principles, information overload, and systems theory. The factors that lead to complexity are listed in each category. Each factor is then applied to the context of data modeling to evaluate if it affects data modeling complexity. Redundant factors from different sources are ignored, and closely linked factors are merged. The factors are then integrated to come up with a comprehensive list of factors. The factors that cannot largely be controlled are dropped from further analysis. The remaining factors are employed to develop a semantic differential scale for assessing cognitive complexity. The paper concludes with implications and recommendations on how to address cognitive complexity caused by data modeling.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Topi H, Ramesh V (2002) Human factors research on data modeling: a review of prior research, an extended framework and future research directions. J Database Manag 13:3–15

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bock D, Ryan T (1993) Accuracy in modeling with extended entity relationship and OO data models. J Database Manag 4(4):30–39

    Google Scholar 

  3. Shoval P, Shiran S (1997) Entity-relationship and object-oriented data modeling—an experimental comparison of design quality. Data Knowl Eng 21:297–315

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Batra D, Antony SR (1994) Novice errors in database design. Eur J Inform Syst 3:57–69

    Google Scholar 

  5. Tversky A, Kahnemann D (1974) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185:1124–1131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Batra D, Wishart NA (2004) Comparing a rule-based approach with a pattern-based approach under varying task complexity in conceptual data modeling. Int J Hum Comput Interact 61:397–419

    Google Scholar 

  7. Hay DC (1996) Data Model Patterns: Conventions Of Thoughts. Dorset House Publishers, New York

    Google Scholar 

  8. Glaser R, Chi MTH (1988) Overview. In: Chi MTH, Glaser R, Farr MJ (eds) The nature of expertise. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp xv–xxviii

    Google Scholar 

  9. Lord RG, Maher KJ (1991) Cognitive theory in industrial and organizational psychology. In: Dunnette MD, Hough LM (eds) Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto

    Google Scholar 

  10. Hardgrave BC, Dalal NP (1995) Comparing object-oriented and extended entity-relationship data modeling. J Database Manag 6:15–21

    Google Scholar 

  11. Liao CC, Palvia PC (2000) The impact of data models and task complexity on end-user performance: an experimental investigation. Int J Hum Comput Stud 52:831–845

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Shoval P, Evan-Chaime M (1987) Database schema design: an experimental comparison between normalization and information analysis. Data Base 18:39–39

    Google Scholar 

  13. Weber R (1996) Are attributes entities? A study of database designers’ memory structures. Inform Syst Res 7:137–162

    Google Scholar 

  14. Kieras D, Polson P (1985) An approach to the formal analysis of user complexity. Int J Man Mach Stud 22:365–394

    Google Scholar 

  15. Bruner JS, Goodnow JJ, Austin GA (1956) A study of thinking. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  16. Evans JSBT (1983) Thinking and reasoning: psychological approaches. Routledge & Kegan Paul, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  17. Casti JL (2001) Complexity. In: Encyclopaedia Britannica Online

  18. Flood RL, Carson ER (1988) Dealing with complexity: an introduction to the theory and application of systems science. Plenum, New York

    Google Scholar 

  19. Niekerk KvK, Buhl H (2004) Introduction: comprehending complexity. In: Niekerk KvK, Buhl H (eds) The significance of complexity: approaching a complex world through science, theology, and the humanities. Ashgate, Aldershot

    Google Scholar 

  20. Miller G (1956) The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychol Rev 63:81–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Uhr L, Vossier C, Weman J (1962) Pattern recognition over distortions by human subjects and a computer model of human form perception. J Exp Psychol 63:227–234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Pippenger N (1978) Complexity theory. Sci Am 238:114–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Siau K, Cao Q (2001) Unified modeling language (UML)—a complexity analysis. J Database Manag 12:26–34

    Google Scholar 

  24. Siau K, Tian Y (2001) The complexity of unified modeling language—a GOMS analysis. In: 14th international conference on information systems (ICIS’01). New Orleans, LA

  25. Siau K, Erickson J, Lee LY (2005) Theoretical vs. practical complexity: the case of UML. J Database Manag 16:40–57

    Google Scholar 

  26. Zendler A, Pfeiffer T, Eicks M, Lehner F (2001) Experimental comparison of coarse-grained concepts in UML, OML, and TOP. J Syst Software 57:21–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Rossi M, Brinkkemper S (1996) Complexity metrics for systems development methods and techniques. Inform Syst 21:209–227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Reeves WW (1996) Cognition and complexity: the cognitive science of managing complexity. Scarecrow Press, Lanham

    Google Scholar 

  29. Reeves WW (1999) Learner-centered design: a cognitive view of managing complexity in product, information, and environmental design. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  30. Polya G (1985) How to solve it. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  31. Newell A, Simon HA (1972) Human problem solving. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs

    Google Scholar 

  32. Funke J (1991) Solving complex problems: exploration and control of complex social problems. In: Sternberg RJ, Frensch PA (eds) Complex problem solving: principles and mechanisms. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 185–222

    Google Scholar 

  33. Norman DA, Draper SW (1986) User centered system design: new perspectives on human–computer interaction. Erlbaum, Hillsdale

    Google Scholar 

  34. Nielsen J, Molich R (1989) Teaching use interface design based on usability engineering. SIGSCHI Bull 21:45–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Norman DA (1988) The psychology of everyday things. Basic Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  36. Chen PP (1976) The entity-relationship model—toward a unified view of data. ACM Trans Database Syst 1:9–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Codd EF (1970) A relational model of data for large shared banks. Commun ACM 13:377–387

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  38. Srinivasan A, Te’eni D (1995) Modeling as constrained problem-solving: an empirical study of the data modeling process. Manag Sci 41:419–434

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  39. Purao S, Storey V, Han T (2003) Improving reuse-based design: augmenting analysis patterns reuse with learning. Inform Syst Res 14:269–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Wurman RS (1989) Information anxiety. Doubleday, New York

    Google Scholar 

  41. Luhmann N (1995) Social systems. Stanford University Press, Stanford

    Google Scholar 

  42. Rosch E (1978) Principles of categorization. In: Rosch E, Lloyd BB (eds) Cognition and categorization. Erlbaum, Hillsdale

    Google Scholar 

  43. Holland JH, Holyoak KJ, Nisbett RE, Thagard PR (1986) Induction: processes of inference, learning, and discovery. MIT, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  44. Teorey T, Yang D, Fry JF (1986) A logical design methodology for relational databases using the extended entity-relationship model. ACM Comput Surv 18:197–222

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  45. Banathy BH (1991) Systems design of education: a journey to create the future. Educational Technology Publications, Englewood Cliffs

    Google Scholar 

  46. Guillemette R (1989) Development and validation of a reader-based documentation measure. Int J Man Mach Stud 30:551–574

    Google Scholar 

  47. Stone EF (1978) Research methods in organizational behavior. Scott, Foresman, Glenview

    Google Scholar 

  48. Hevner A, March S, Ram S, Park J (2004) Design science research in information systems. MIS Quart 28:75–105

    Google Scholar 

  49. Batra D, Sein M (1993) Improving conceptual database design through feedback. Int J Man Mach Stud 40:653–676

    Google Scholar 

  50. Wand Y, Weber R (2002) Research commentary: information systems and conceptual modeling—a research agenda. Inform Syst Res 13:363–376

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Larman C (2004) Agile and iterative development: a manager’s guide. Addison-Wesley, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  52. Teorey T, Wei G, Bolton DL, Koenig JA (1989) ER model clustering as an aid for user communication and documentation in database design. Commun ACM 32:975–987

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Date CJ (2000) An introduction to database systems. Addison-Wesley, Reading

    Google Scholar 

  54. Whitlock W, Nelson K, Rapp R (2003) Modern database management casebook. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River

    Google Scholar 

  55. Batra D, Zanakis SH (1994) A conceptual database design methodology based on rules and heuristics. Eur J Inform Syst 3:57–69

    Google Scholar 

  56. Maier D (1988) The theory of relational databases. Computer Science Press, Rockville

    Google Scholar 

  57. Antony SR, Batra D (2002) A consulting system for conceptual database design. Database Adv Inform Syst 33:54–68

    Google Scholar 

  58. Bak P (1996) How nature works: the science of self-organized criticality. Copernicus, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  59. Mayer R (1989) Models for understanding. Rev Educ Res 59:43–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Abts C (2002) COTS-based systems and make vs. buy decisions. In: International workshop on reuse economics. Austin

  61. Taeschler D (2002) Metrical approaches to customer equity through CRM. In: Montgomery research CRM Project, Vol 3

  62. Soloway E, Pryor A (1996) The next generation in human–computer interaction. Commun ACM 39:16–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Business Administration, Florida International University, 11200 SW 8th Street, Miami, FL, 33199, USA

    Dinesh Batra

Authors
  1. Dinesh Batra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dinesh Batra.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Batra, D. Cognitive complexity in data modeling: causes and recommendations. Requirements Eng 12, 231–244 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-006-0040-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-006-0040-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation